Specialized Interview with Dane Kennedy, Professor at George Washington University: Decolonization and the Legacy of Empire

Decolonization cannot be reduced merely to a historical moment in which imperial flags were lowered, newly independent states declared their sovereignty, and the political map of the world was transformed. Although the twentieth century witnessed the collapse of many European empires and the emergence of dozens of independent states, a fundamental question remains:

Did the end of colonial rule also mean the end of imperial logic?

History demonstrates that empires have never been defined solely through territorial occupation and direct political control. At various points, after the collapse of their formal structures, imperial systems have been reproduced through new forms of economic influence, institutional arrangements, unequal global relations, and political and cultural hierarchies.

For this reason, decolonization should not be understood as a final endpoint, but rather as a complex, multilayered, and ongoing process—a process in which questions of sovereignty, national identity, territorial boundaries, economic development, and global justice have continuously remained contested.

Within this framework, examining the history of empires represents an effort to understand many of the conflicts and power structures that shape the contemporary world. Questions concerning the persistence of global inequalities, the role of major powers, the relationship between former colonial states and former colonies, and even new forms of exercising power all have roots in the history of empire and colonialism.

This interview with Professor Dane Kennedy, Professor of History at George Washington University and one of the leading scholars of the history of the British Empire, colonialism, and decolonization, examines these fundamental questions. Kennedy’s scholarship has played an important role in rethinking the relationship between empire, nation-states, colonies, and structures of global inequality.

Accordingly, this conversation explores a wide range of issues, including:

• the meaning of decolonization as a historical process;
• the different waves of imperial collapse;
• the persistence of imperial hierarchies after formal independence;
• the tension between self-determination and territorial integrity;
• the reciprocal relationship between Britain and its colonies;
• the transformation of British imperial governance between 1880 and 1945;
• the impact of the world wars on the legitimacy of empires;
• and the relationship between imperial history and contemporary forms of power, including the policies of the Trump administration toward Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.

Interview Information

• Interviewer: Mahdi Baeidi Nejad | PhD Student in International Relations, University of Isfahan
• Interviewee: Professor Dane Kennedy | Professor of History, George Washington University
• Date of Interview: Monday, 30 March 2026
• Main Topics:

1. Decolonization: A Historical Process Beyond the Moment of Imperial Collapse
2. Uneven Decolonization: The Role of Internal Resistance and Global Crises in the Decline of Empires
3. The End of Empires or Their Transformation?
4. Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity, and the Difficult Question of Postcolonial Nation-Building
5. Post-Imperial States: Has the World Truly Moved Beyond Imperial Logic?
6. Center and Colony: Rethinking British National History through the Lens of Empire
7. Empire, Citizenship, Race, and British Political Identity
8. Empire at the Center of Modern British History
9. The Height of British Imperialism (1880–1945)
10. Why Did Britain Build an Empire?
11. The Secret of the British Empire’s Longevity: Flexibility Rather than Uniformity
12. Imperial Rivalry and the Road to 1945
13. The World Wars and the Crisis of Imperial Legitimacy
14. The Return of Imperial Logic in Contemporary Politics
15. Anti-Imperial Resistance within Imperial Powers

Note: In order to preserve academic independence and diversity of perspectives, it should be emphasized that the opinions expressed in this interview reflect solely the personal views of the interviewee and do not necessarily imply endorsement or adoption of a position by the Human Rights Institute of the University of Isfahan.

Interview Summary

Topic 1: Decolonization: A Historical Process Beyond the Moment of Imperial Collapse

• Question: How should decolonization be understood as a historical process rather than a single event? In particular, how can this concept be understood beyond simplified narratives that portray it either solely as the victory of liberation movements or merely as the direct collapse of empires?

In response to this question, Professor Kennedy focuses on the idea that decolonization should first and foremost be understood as a historical process rather than a single event or a clearly defined moment of political rupture. To properly understand this concept, he argues, one must first recognize that empires have shaped a significant portion of recorded human history.

From the emergence of states onward, imperial structures have appeared in different forms, and resistance against imperial domination is almost equally ancient. Therefore, Professor Kennedy argues that empire and resistance to empire are not exclusively modern phenomena; rather, they represent recurring patterns throughout world history.

However, according to Professor Kennedy, when discussing decolonization in its modern meaning, the concept must be situated within the specific historical context of European overseas empires after approximately 1500. These empires differed significantly from many earlier imperial structures because, unlike contiguous territorial empires, their dominated territories were located beyond the geographical borders of the imperial homeland.

This geographical separation created a distinct political and conceptual divide between the imperial center and the colony—a divide that later became one of the defining features of the colonial experience.

Over time, particularly from around 1750 onward, European empires increasingly developed distinct national identities. European societies defined themselves as nation-states with independent political identities while simultaneously governing territories beyond Europe.

This condition created a deeper division between the “nation” as a self-defined political community and the “colony” as a dependent and subordinated territory.

Therefore, Professor Kennedy argues that modern decolonization must be understood within this historical context: as a specific form of resistance against overseas empires.

Modern decolonization occurred in different parts of the world and at different historical moments. This process did not follow a single pattern, nor did it produce identical outcomes in all regions. Nevertheless, in most cases, its primary objective was the creation of a nation-state—a political unit with territorial and demographic coherence, possessing a shared identity or expected to develop such an identity.

Therefore, decolonization should not be understood merely as a story of liberation or imperial collapse. Rather, it was a struggle over sovereignty, identity, territory, and political legitimacy.

For Professor Kennedy, decolonization emerged from the interaction between anti-colonial movements, the responses of imperial powers, international circumstances, and competing visions regarding the future of societies after empire.

Topic 2: Uneven Decolonization: The Role of Internal Resistance and Global Crises in the Decline of Empires

• Question: What structural forces most significantly shaped the uneven process of decolonization across different regions of the world? How should the relative importance of factors such as colonial policies, world wars, Cold War rivalries, economic constraints, and local resistance movements be evaluated?

According to Professor Kennedy, the question of why decolonization occurred at different speeds and through different trajectories across various parts of the world has been one of the most important and contested issues among historians. Different scholars have emphasized different factors. Some have focused on political developments within colonial powers; others on the economic exhaustion of empires, the pressures generated by the Cold War, ideological transformations, or the role of resistance movements within colonized societies.

However, he notes that the dominant view among many contemporary historians is that local resistance was the most important driving force behind decolonization. People who had been incorporated into imperial structures against their own will resisted imperial domination, and these movements played a decisive role in achieving independence.

Nevertheless, from Professor Kennedy’s perspective, this argument requires an important qualification. Resistance alone cannot explain why decolonization succeeded in some places while failing in others, or why it became possible at a particular historical moment.

In many cases, one can argue that peoples living under the authority of a foreign state or empire naturally resist such conditions. However, resistance does not always lead to victory. Its success depends to a significant extent on external and historical circumstances that are often beyond the control of local actors.

One of the most important conditions that, according to Professor Kennedy, enabled successful decolonization was the occurrence of major wars among imperial powers. These conflicts not only weakened the material capacities of empires, but also undermined their legitimacy and created new political opportunities for anti-colonial movements. From this perspective, he argues that decolonization can be understood as a series of historical waves.

The first major wave of decolonization emerged in the Americas and followed the Seven Years’ War. Britain, weakened as an empire as a result of these extensive conflicts, faced rebellion among its North American colonies, which eventually led to the independence of the United States.

This wave continued during the period of the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. According to Professor Kennedy, these conflicts destabilized the imperial structures of France, Spain, and Portugal and created conditions for subsequent waves of independence movements in the New World.

The second wave developed in the context of World War I—a war that was itself fundamentally a global conflict among empires. This war resulted in the collapse of major land-based empires in Eastern and Central Europe and contributed to the emergence of new nation-states.

Professor Kennedy argues that Vladimir Lenin’s analysis of imperialism as competition and conflict among imperial powers reflected part of the reality of this period. World War I demonstrated that empires were vulnerable not only to internal resistance but also to competition and exhaustion produced by conflicts among themselves.

The third wave, which is the most widely recognized phase of decolonization, occurred after World War II in the countries of the Third World, or the Global South. This wave was also directly connected to a global war among imperial powers.

World War II severely weakened European colonial powers such as Britain, France, and the Netherlands and created a new international environment in which anti-colonial movements were able to achieve greater success. Moreover, World War II not only reduced the economic and military capacities of European empires, but also placed the ideological foundations used to justify empire under severe pressure.

Professor Kennedy also suggests that a fourth wave of decolonization can be identified, one associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Historians disagree over whether the Cold War should be understood, in the same way as earlier conflicts, as a struggle among empires.

However, Professor Kennedy argues that the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the emergence of a new collection of nation-states. From this perspective, the dissolution of Soviet power can also be understood as a form of decolonization—a process in which an imperial-like structure collapsed and new political units emerged.

Ultimately, Professor Kennedy argues that decolonization was the product of an interaction between local resistance and global structural crises. Resistance was a necessary condition for ending colonial domination, but it was the major crises of empires that created the opportunities for those resistance movements to succeed.

In other words, anti-colonial movements planted the seeds of change, but wars and global crises created the cracks in the walls of empire—cracks that ultimately paved the way for the emergence of new states and the end of formal colonial rule.

Topic 3: The End of Empires or Their Transformation?

• Question: Did decolonization fundamentally eliminate imperial hierarchies, or did it merely reorganize them through new diplomatic, economic, and institutional forms?

In response to this question, Professor Kennedy argues that decolonization did not fundamentally eliminate imperial hierarchies. This process transformed and weakened certain formal structures of empire and changed the political language through which power was exercised; however, it did not mean the disappearance of imperial logic as a historical phenomenon.

According to him, if decolonization is understood as a series of historical waves, it becomes easier to observe how imperial structures repeatedly reconstructed themselves, adapted, or reproduced themselves in new forms after losing particular colonies.

For example, Britain did not come to an end after losing its North American colonies. Rather, in subsequent periods, it became one of the most powerful empires in world history. From Professor Kennedy’s perspective, France followed a similar trajectory. After losing many of its colonies in the Americas, it continued to operate as an imperial power and later built an extensive empire in Africa and Asia.

An additional example, in his analysis, is the United States. After gaining independence from Britain, the United States itself became an imperial power. Thomas Jefferson referred to the United States as an “Empire of Liberty,” a phrase that reveals a fundamental contradiction within the American project.

While the United States had itself escaped British colonial domination, it quickly moved toward territorial expansion, the seizure of Indigenous lands, and the creation of its own imperial structure.

The experience of Russia, from Professor Kennedy’s perspective, represents another example of the continuation of imperial forms. The Russian Tsarist Empire collapsed after World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution; however, the Bolsheviks reconstructed a large portion of its former territory within a new political framework.

The Soviet Union, despite presenting itself as revolutionary and anti-imperialist, preserved many of the territorial and geopolitical dimensions of the former Russian Empire.

According to Professor Kennedy, these examples demonstrate that decolonization does not necessarily mean the end of empire. Empires may formally collapse, yet re-emerge in new territorial, institutional, or ideological forms. Imperial power may shift from direct political control toward other forms, including:

• Economic influence;
• Strategic dominance;
• Control over resources;
• Institutional superiority;
• Or ideological power.

Therefore, from Professor Kennedy’s perspective, decolonization did not mean the destruction of hierarchies; rather, it represented a transformation in the ways through which these hierarchies were exercised.

Power does not necessarily disappear with the change of flags and the collapse of formal structures; instead, it often finds new pathways through which it can continue to operate.

Topic 4: Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity, and the Difficult Question of Postcolonial Nation-Building

• Question: How should the relationship between the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity be interpreted during the era of decolonization? Were these two principles inherently in structural tension from the beginning?

At the beginning of his response to this question, Professor Kennedy emphasizes that the relationship between self-determination and territorial integrity has always been complex. One of the fundamental challenges of decolonization was determining who constituted the new “nation.” If the objective of decolonization was the creation of an independent nation-state, an immediate question emerged:

Who belongs to this nation?

According to him, different groups often have different visions regarding their political futures. These differences may involve competing claims concerning territory, national identity, and the boundaries of political belonging. Such disagreements can lead to several possible outcomes.

One possible outcome is the division of a territory into separate political units. The partition of India and Pakistan represents one of the most significant examples in this regard. Other examples, including Israel and Palestine, Vietnam and Korea, demonstrate how disagreements over the definition of a political community can result in territorial separation.

From Professor Kennedy’s perspective, partition often reflects a failure or inability to create a shared political framework capable of accommodating different groups.

Another pathway—one of the most tragic forms of nation-building—occurs when one group defines another group as outside the national community and seeks to remove, expel, or eliminate it. Ethnic cleansing has been a widespread and painful phenomenon in the history of nation-state formation.

A third option, although more difficult in the short term, may be more desirable in the long term: the creation of a political framework in which different groups can understand themselves as belonging to a shared nation.

In this model, Professor Kennedy argues that the nation is not constructed on the basis of an exclusive ethnic identity, but rather as a common civic and political project.

Every country contains human diversity within its borders. Even after the formation of nation-states, the process of determining who is considered a member of the nation and who remains outside it continues.

Professor Kennedy notes that this issue remains relevant today, including in the United States, where debates surrounding migration, citizenship, race, and national identity demonstrate that nation-building is never entirely complete.

Therefore, in his analysis, the tension between self-determination and territorial integrity is not accidental; rather, it is inherent in the project of decolonization and the formation of the modern nation-state.

Topic 5: Post-Imperial States: Has the World Truly Moved Beyond Imperial Logic?

• Question: Is speaking of post-imperial states a meaningful concept? Or do imperial logics continue to shape international institutions and the global economic system after the end of formal colonialism?

In response to this question, Professor Kennedy explains that it is possible to speak of post-imperial states, but the concept requires precision and caution. Countries such as Britain and France today are clearly different from what they were during the period when they governed vast colonial empires. They no longer possess extensive colonial territories across the world, and in this sense, they can be considered post-imperial states.

However, at the same time, Professor Kennedy emphasizes that imperial logics continue to exist within global structures.

He highlights the continuing importance of the concept of neocolonialism, most closely associated with Kwame Nkrumah, the leader of Ghana’s independence movement. Nkrumah argued that former colonial powers, even after the end of direct political control, continued to maintain significant economic influence over newly independent states.

According to this perspective, political independence does not necessarily mean complete liberation from unequal power relations.

Professor Kennedy argues that Latin American economists and dependency theorists advanced similar arguments. They maintained that many countries of the Global South remained in conditions of underdevelopment because they were integrated into an international economic system whose structure had been shaped in favor of former colonial powers and industrialized core countries.

According to this interpretation, the problem does not exist only in the colonial past; rather, it lies in structures that continued after the end of formal colonial rule.

In Professor Kennedy’s analysis, many scholars argue that the global economic system operates in ways that disproportionately benefit powerful countries, many of which have imperial histories. Meanwhile, other countries continue to function primarily as producers of raw materials and essential resources such as oil.

Therefore, colonialism did not simply disappear with the declaration of independence by former colonies. To understand this issue, different forms of power must be distinguished.

From his perspective, formal empire was primarily based on direct political control, territorial administration, and military presence. However, after the end of formal colonialism, other forms of unequal power emerged, including:

• Unequal global trade rules;
• Patterns of investment;
• Dependence on natural resources;
• International financial structures;
• Unequal terms of economic exchange.

In other words, Professor Kennedy argues that a country may be legally and politically independent while still remaining embedded within networks of economic dependency. Political independence represented the end of an important historical chapter, but it did not necessarily mark the end of all unequal relationships.

From this perspective, empire may disappear with the loss of flags, armies, and colonial administrations, yet traces of imperial structures may remain within trade routes, flows of capital, institutional arrangements, and global hierarchies.

Therefore, decolonization is not only a question about the past; it is also a question about the structure of the contemporary world.

Topic 6: Center and Colony: Rethinking British National History through the Lens of Empire

• Question: How does the reciprocal relationship between colony and imperial center challenge traditional narratives that have treated empire as a marginal subject within British national history?

In response to this question, Professor Kennedy explains that understanding this issue requires first examining how history emerged as an academic discipline. He argues that during the nineteenth century, professional history was largely shaped around the concept of the nation.

Historiography provided nations with a past, strengthened national identity, and created narratives concerning the historical purpose and trajectory of societies. For this reason, a significant portion of professional historical writing from the nineteenth century onward was produced in the form of national histories.

Within this approach, the nation was considered the primary unit of historical analysis.

However, an approach that later became known as the “new imperial history” challenged this framework. This approach argued that nations cannot be understood separately from their external relationships and transnational interactions—particularly when those nations themselves were imperial powers.

Britain, as the largest empire in world history, cannot be studied merely within the geographical boundaries of the British Isles. British national identity, political culture, economic development, racial ideas, and concepts of citizenship were all shaped through interaction with imperial experience.

According to Professor Kennedy, the imperial center and the colonies were not two entirely separate worlds. They influenced one another.

Therefore, his argument is that just as Britain shaped the empire, the empire also transformed Britain. For this reason, in order to understand British national history, empire must be placed not at the margins, but at the center of analysis.

Topic 7: Empire, Citizenship, Race, and British Political Identity

• Question: To what extent did imperial rule transform British political culture domestically, particularly regarding concepts such as citizenship, race, and national identity?

In response to this question, Professor Kennedy emphasizes that empire had a profound impact on British political culture, particularly through the creation of distinctions between concepts such as citizen and subject, white and non-white, and center and colony. Within Britain itself, people were generally defined as citizens. However, in many parts of the empire, populations under British rule were more often positioned as imperial subjects.

Nevertheless, Professor Kennedy emphasizes that this distinction was never entirely simple or absolute. Among British intellectuals and policymakers, there existed a group of imperial liberals who attempted to reduce or even eliminate this divide. Many of these liberals believed that colonial populations could progress through the path of “civilization” and eventually become equal members of a broader political community.

However, this liberal imperial vision gradually confronted a fundamental reality:

Race.

According to Professor Kennedy’s analysis, the idea that empire could incorporate colonial populations as equal members of a political community came into conflict with racial hierarchies that placed white Britons in a superior position compared with others.

In fact, he argues that the British Empire lived with a fundamental contradiction:

On the one hand, its official language emphasized concepts such as progress, reform, education, and the advancement of colonial societies.

On the other hand, racial and cultural structures created hierarchies in which certain societies were considered inherently more capable or deserving than others.

This tension between integration and differentiation became one of the defining characteristics of British imperial political culture. Ultimately, the tendency to create boundaries and distinctions prevailed over the aspiration toward inclusion.

According to Professor Kennedy, British identity gradually became defined not only through internal characteristics, but also through contrast with the “colonial other.” Race and culture became instruments through which the boundary between Britain and the empire was maintained.

Therefore, empire was not merely a mechanism for governing distant populations in overseas territories; rather, it was also a way through which Britain defined itself.

Topic 8: Empire at the Center of Modern British History

• Question: Historically, is it possible to present a narrative of modern British history without placing empire at its center?

Professor Kennedy provides a clear answer:

No.

From a historical perspective, modern British history cannot be narrated without placing empire at its center. From approximately 1600 onward, the history of Britain and the history of empire became deeply intertwined.

According to him, the influence of newer approaches in imperial history has made this relationship increasingly evident. Many contemporary studies of Britain are, in fact, also histories of empire, because the country’s history cannot be separated from its experience of global domination.

This issue is not limited only to the period of formal imperial expansion; it continued even after decolonization.

Following the end of formal empire, Britain witnessed the arrival of large numbers of migrants from India, the Caribbean, Africa, and other former colonial regions. These migrations transformed British society and contributed to the emergence of a more ethnically diverse and multicultural country.

In this sense, empire no longer existed only beyond Britain’s borders; it returned to the domestic sphere and became part of the country’s social structure.

Contemporary cultural debates in Britain remain deeply influenced by imperial legacies. Discussions concerning:

• Race;
• Slavery;
• Migration;
• National identity;
• And how imperial history should be remembered,

are not merely debates about the past.

From Professor Kennedy’s perspective, they are fundamentally questions about Britain’s future:

What kind of country does Britain want to become?

Does it wish to embrace a pluralistic and post-imperial identity?

Or does it seek to maintain a nationalist narrative that marginalizes aspects of its history, including slavery, racial violence, and colonial domination?

According to Professor Kennedy’s analysis, Britain has not escaped the legacy of empire. Empire continues to occupy a central place in the country’s political, cultural, and identity debates.

The imperial past is not merely a distant memory; rather, it remains a living force that continues to shape the present and influence the future.

Topic 9: The Height of British Imperialism (1880–1945)

• Question: What characteristics distinguish the period of British imperialism between 1880 and 1945 from earlier stages of British expansion? Particularly in relation to the consolidation of administrative systems, racial hierarchies, economic transformations, and competition among imperial powers?

Professor Kennedy argues that the period between 1880 and 1945 possessed several distinctive characteristics. First, during this era, the British Empire reached the greatest territorial extent in its history. Its territories expanded across vast areas of Africa, the Middle East, the Pacific, and other regions.

According to him, this period is often referred to as the era of “New Imperialism”—a period characterized by intense competition among European powers, particularly during the “Scramble for Africa.” During this period, the empire was no longer merely a collection of scattered territories under British influence; rather, it had developed into a complex global system of political, economic, and strategic control.

The second major feature of this period, according to Professor Kennedy, was the growing distinction between two different types of imperial territories:

First, white settler colonies, and second, colonies whose populations were primarily non-white.

According to this division, settler colonies such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, along with similar territories, gradually acquired greater political autonomy and moved toward becoming states with extensive internal self-government. By contrast, colonies whose populations were predominantly non-white were generally governed through more authoritarian systems and under tighter forms of direct control.

From Professor Kennedy’s perspective, this distinction reflected the growing influence of racial ideas within British imperial policy. The political message behind this division was clear:

White settlers could govern themselves; indigenous populations generally could not.

This demonstrated a fundamental failure of the project of imperial liberalism.

Professor Kennedy explains that imperial liberalism initially promised that colonial societies could, through education, reform, and “progress,” eventually reach a position of equality within the imperial political order. However, the reality of racial structures limited this promise. Race became a decisive factor in determining the political status of individuals and societies.

The third characteristic of this period was the transformation of Britain’s economic position. Britain remained a major industrial power, but it was no longer the absolute “workshop of the world” that it had once been.

During the second half of the nineteenth century, the center of British economic power gradually shifted toward areas such as:

• Finance;
• International trade;
• Foreign investment;
• And control over global economic networks.

In other words, Professor Kennedy emphasizes that British power increasingly depended not only on domestic industrial production, but also on its ability to manage global financial and economic flows.

The fourth characteristic identified by Professor Kennedy was the growing competition with newly emerging industrial powers seeking to build their own empires. Countries such as:

• Germany;
• Italy;
• Japan;
• And other rising powers,

entered the competition for territory, resources, and global influence. This rivalry gradually destabilized the international balance of power and contributed to the major crises of the twentieth century.

Therefore, according to Professor Kennedy’s framework, the period between 1880 and 1945 should not be understood merely as an era of British territorial expansion. Rather, it was a period in which the British Empire attempted to adapt itself to a rapidly changing world—a world in which industrial power, geopolitical competition, racial ideologies, and emerging forms of nationalism became increasingly interconnected.

Topic 10: Why Did Britain Build an Empire?

• Question: During the later period of empire, was British imperialism primarily driven by strategic considerations, economic necessities, or ideological beliefs? Or was it shaped by a changing combination of these factors?

Professor Kennedy emphasizes that British imperialism was the result of a changing combination of economic, strategic, and ideological factors. No single factor alone can explain why Britain built and expanded a global empire.

Expanding on this issue, he explains that during the mid-nineteenth century, economic considerations were particularly important. Classical economic liberals believed that Britain’s economic power could integrate different regions of the world into a global economic order that would be beneficial for all, without necessarily requiring direct territorial control.

Within this perspective, free trade could replace direct domination.

However, after 1880, conditions changed. With increasing competition among global powers, strategic considerations became more significant. Britain felt the need to preserve its position against rival powers.

This concern encouraged the country to establish more direct forms of control in regions such as Africa and elsewhere—areas where formal political domination had previously not always been considered necessary.

From Professor Kennedy’s perspective, the security of maritime routes, access to resources, and preventing the expansion of geopolitical rivals became important elements of British imperial policy. Ideology also played a significant role.

Concepts such as:

• The civilizing mission;
• Racial hierarchies;
• Reform and advancement of colonial societies;
• And the “imperial duty,”

became tools for justifying imperial expansion.

However, these ideologies were neither fixed nor unchanged. They evolved over time and constantly interacted with economic interests and strategic considerations.

Therefore, British imperialism cannot be explained as the product of a single motivation. At different moments, economics, security concerns, global competition, and ideas about civilization and cultural superiority each played different roles in shaping the empire.

Topic 11: The Secret of the British Empire’s Longevity: Flexibility Rather Than Uniformity

• Question: To what extent did bureaucratic rationalization, administrative standardization, and new forms of governance contribute to the durability of the British Empire?

At the beginning of his response to this question, Professor Kennedy emphasizes that the endurance of the British Empire was not primarily the result of administrative standardization or the creation of a completely unified system of governance. Rather, it was largely the outcome of flexibility and the ability to adapt to different circumstances.

In fact, he argues that the British Empire succeeded precisely because it did not impose a single and fixed model of administration across all of its territories.

The British Empire incorporated different regions and populations into its structure through different arrangements. One territory might be governed as a directly administered colony; another might exist as a protectorate; another might be governed through indirect rule; and elsewhere, particularly in settler colonies, a structure closer to political self-government could emerge.

According to Professor Kennedy’s analysis, this meant that the political structure of the British Empire was complex, irregular, and sometimes difficult to categorize. It was a collection of different arrangements that did not always follow a single logic.

From this perspective, the British Empire differed from empires such as the Spanish Empire, which attempted to establish a relatively more coherent and unified framework for governing their territories. Professor Kennedy suggests that the British Empire can, to some extent, be understood as a large collection of agreements, mechanisms, and relationships—something like a vast political body whose different parts possessed their own distinctive forms.

This flexibility allowed Britain to adapt to different local conditions. Rather than governing all societies through a single administrative model, the British could modify their political arrangements according to the characteristics of each region.

In some areas, they relied on local leaders; in others, they established direct administration; and elsewhere, they granted greater privileges and forms of autonomy.

Therefore, Professor Kennedy argues that what might initially appear to be a weakness—the absence of complete administrative order and uniformity—actually became one of the empire’s sources of strength.

The British Empire endured not because it possessed a perfectly organized administrative machine, but because of its ability to adapt, transform, and negotiate with different circumstances.

Topic 12: Imperial Rivalry and the Road to 1945

• Question: How did imperial competition among European powers and other global actors transform the balance of power in the decades leading up to 1945?

In response to this question, Professor Kennedy first highlights the historical reality that the decades leading up to 1945 were shaped by the rise of aggressive imperial powers, particularly Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. All three of these powers sought to expand their empires through the use of force. Although these countries had imperial ambitions before this period, their desire to acquire new territories intensified significantly during these decades.

The fundamental problem was that much of the world had already been divided among existing empires. Therefore, any further expansion required confrontation with established imperial powers such as Britain, France, the Netherlands, and others.

According to Professor Kennedy’s analysis, competition for territory, resources, and influence gradually destabilized the international order. World War II ultimately emerged from these imperial rivalries.

The war first became a major conflict in Asia, particularly with Japan’s invasion of China, before expanding into a global confrontation. The war severely weakened older empires and produced two major historical consequences:

1. The acceleration of decolonization in the Global South;
2. The emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as the two dominant global powers after the war.

In this sense, World War II was not merely a military conflict between states; it represented a decisive turning point in the history of empires. A war that began partly through competition among imperial powers ultimately contributed to the erosion of the very structures that those powers had sought to preserve.

Topic 13: The World Wars and the Crisis of Imperial Legitimacy

• Question: To what extent did the two world wars undermine the legitimacy of empires from within, rather than merely reducing the material power of Britain and other colonial powers?

Professor Kennedy argues that the world wars weakened the legitimacy of empires both materially and ideologically, although the decline of material capabilities often played the more decisive role.

World War II, in particular, dealt a profound blow to the racial ideologies that had long served as one of the intellectual foundations of imperial rule. The racial ideology of Nazi Germany and the mass atrocities committed against Jews and other groups after 1945 made it far more difficult to defend empire on the basis of claims of racial superiority.

From Professor Kennedy’s perspective, after the experience of World War II, it became increasingly difficult for Britain, France, or other colonial powers to justify their domination through arguments about cultural or racial superiority. However, the weakening of ideological legitimacy did not mean that imperial powers immediately decided to abandon their empires.

Britain, France, and the Netherlands all attempted after the war to restore their imperial positions, particularly in Asia. Britain even assisted France and the Netherlands at certain points in their efforts to reestablish control in regions such as Vietnam and the Dutch East Indies (present-day Indonesia).

Professor Kennedy argues that this demonstrates that the end of empire was not the result of a sudden transformation in the attitudes of colonial powers. They still believed that maintaining colonies was necessary for their interests.

According to Professor Kennedy’s analysis, after World War II, colonial powers believed that because their economies had been devastated, they needed imperial resources and capacities more than ever before. They did not abandon empire because they had lost interest in it; rather, they gradually lost it because their ability to maintain imperial domination declined in the face of anti-colonial movements.

This distinction is crucial. The end of empire was therefore less the result of a sudden transformation in the political will of colonial powers and more the outcome of a declining capacity to preserve the old imperial order.

In fact, Professor Kennedy argues that the logic of empire continued to exist after World War II, although its justifications changed. The explicit language of racial superiority was gradually replaced by newer languages concerning:

• Development;
• Modernization;
• Security;
• Political stability;
• And mutual interests.

However, beneath this transformation of language, the fundamental issues of power and inequality remained.

In other words, Professor Kennedy argues that World War II did not merely weaken the physical structures of empire; it also created deep fractures in the narratives through which empires justified themselves.

Empires entered a crisis of moral and political legitimacy, but their actual end came when they no longer possessed the capacity to preserve the old world order.

Topic 14: The Return of Imperial Logic in Contemporary Politics

• Question: From a historical perspective, can the policies of the Trump administration toward Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba be understood as a continuation of imperial logic? Do these policies represent a new form of imperial power?

Professor Kennedy initially provides a brief but decisive answer:

Yes.

He then explains that the policies of the Trump administration can be understood as a form of imperial power.

This dynamic is particularly visible in the Western Hemisphere, where Trump has directly invoked the Monroe Doctrine—a doctrine historically associated with asserting U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere and possessing clear imperial dimensions.

The cases of Venezuela and Cuba clearly fit within this framework. However, Professor Kennedy argues that this pattern is not limited only to the Americas.

The United States has possessed imperial characteristics throughout much of its history, and since World War II it has become a global imperial power. The extensive network of U.S. military bases around the world represents one indication of the global reach of American power.

However, what distinguishes the Trump administration, according to Professor Kennedy, is its movement toward a more explicit and aggressive form of imperial power.

For a long period, the United States exercised a significant portion of its influence through instruments of soft power, including:

• Diplomacy;
• Cultural influence;
• International institutions;
• And economic tools.

Of course, the United States also continued to use military force whenever it considered it necessary. However, during the Trump era, emphasis on direct coercion, threats, and overt military intervention became more visible.

Professor Kennedy argues that this situation can be understood as a return to forms of imperialism that many believed belonged to the past. Unfortunately, these logics continue to exist in the contemporary world.

Great powers may change their language, but the fundamental questions remain:

Who has the right to determine the political order of others?

Who defines the boundary between “security” and “domination”?

And how can a balance be created between the power of states and the right of peoples to determine their own futures?

Topic 15: Anti-Imperial Resistance within Imperial Powers

• Question: How significant is internal resistance and opposition within contemporary imperial states? Do popular protests inside major powers create a meaningful difference compared with earlier periods of imperial expansion?

In response to this question, Professor Kennedy first emphasizes that domestic opposition to imperial expansion is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, even during the height of the British Empire, groups existed within Britain that opposed imperial policies. Therefore, empires have never been completely unified societies without internal disagreement.

Nevertheless, Professor Kennedy considers contemporary protests against the aggressive policies of the Trump administration to be encouraging. Movements such as the “No Kings” protests demonstrate that significant segments of American society reject authoritarian and imperial tendencies. Such forms of opposition may not immediately change a government’s foreign policy, but they remain politically and morally significant.

The existence of internal resistance demonstrates that imperial states and major powers are not unified entities without divisions. A government may pursue policies based on domination, coercion, or intervention, while at the same time parts of its own society may reject those policies. This is significant because it shows that imperial politics is always contested—even within the societies that exercise imperial power.

However, Professor Kennedy acknowledges that whether such opposition can effectively limit state power and government policies remains an open question. Under current conditions, restricting state behavior and foreign policy appears difficult. Nevertheless, popular resistance remains an important element of anti-imperialist politics.

Empire is not created only through armies, governments, and formal institutions. It is also contested through public opinion, political ethics, and struggles over the meaning of justice.

Policy Recommendations

1. Redefining International Relations Based on Sovereign Equality and Ending Historical Dependencies: Countries should seek to move their foreign relations away from historical patterns of dependency and hierarchical power structures and rebuild them on the basis of equal cooperation, respect for sovereignty, and mutual interests. Political independence can only become sustainable when accompanied by reducing economic, technological, and institutional dependencies. Within this framework, reforming unequal structures of trade, investment, and global governance should be considered part of completing the process of decolonization.
2. Strengthening Historical and Educational Narratives Regarding the Legacy of Colonialism: Countries and educational systems should examine the history of colonialism and its consequences in a more comprehensive and pluralistic manner. A deeper understanding of colonial experiences, anti-colonial resistance movements, and the impact of empire on contemporary inequalities can contribute to a better understanding of the roots of current conflicts. A critical reassessment of the past is necessary—not to reproduce historical hostility, but to develop historical awareness and prevent the repetition of patterns of domination.
3. Supporting the Right to Self-Determination While Protecting the Rights of Diverse Groups in Nation-Building Processes: The experience of decolonization demonstrates that the formation of new states without consideration of social and identity diversity can lead to long-term conflicts. Nation-building policies should be based on inclusive political frameworks, participation of all social groups, and definitions of citizenship grounded in equal rights. Territorial integrity should not result in ignoring legitimate demands of different groups, and self-determination should be pursued through sustainable political solutions.
4. Reforming National Narratives of Former Imperial Powers and Recognizing Historical Responsibility: Countries with imperial histories should not narrate their past solely from the perspective of national achievements. They should also incorporate the consequences of colonialism, the inequalities created through imperial rule, and its effects on dominated societies into their historical narratives. Acknowledging the complexity of the past can contribute to more inclusive national identities and more balanced relationships with formerly colonized societies.
5. Strengthening Multilateralism and Reforming Global Governance Structures to Reduce Power Inequalities: Given the persistence of some imperial structures in economic, financial, and institutional forms, reforming international institutions should become a priority. Increasing the representation of Global South countries, creating equal opportunities in global decision-making, and reducing the concentration of power among a limited number of actors can contribute to a more balanced international order. Decolonization in the contemporary era requires reforming not only political relations, but also the structures that organize global flows of capital, knowledge, and power.

Conclusion

This conversation provides a historical and analytical framework for understanding decolonization, empire, and the continuation of imperial structures in the contemporary world. From the perspective of the interviewee, decolonization is not a closed chapter of history; rather, it is an ongoing process shaped by resistance, war, state formation, territorial disputes, racial hierarchies, economic dependency, and institutional transformations.

This interview also demonstrates that formal independence did not necessarily mean the complete elimination of imperial hierarchies. Empires may collapse legally and politically, yet they can sometimes reconstruct themselves through new forms. The experiences of Britain, France, Russia, the United States, and other major powers demonstrate that imperial logic can continue even after the end of formal systems of domination.

One of the most important points raised in this conversation is the necessity of placing empire at the center of our understanding of modern history. Empire was not merely a set of relationships between colonial powers and dominated territories; rather, it was a force that also shaped the national identities, concepts of citizenship, racial ideas, and political cultures of imperial societies themselves.

In the case of Britain, the legacy of empire continues to influence contemporary debates concerning migration, multiculturalism, national identity, race, and historical memory. The imperial past is not merely a distant memory; it remains part of the political and cultural landscape of Britain today.

Ultimately, the interviewee’s analysis of contemporary U.S. foreign policy demonstrates that imperial forms of power remain a living feature of international politics. The policies of the Trump administration toward Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba cannot be understood merely as isolated events or temporary deviations. Rather, they can be analyzed within the longer history of imperial ambitions and coercive exercises of power.

At the same time, the existence of domestic resistance within powerful societies demonstrates that imperial politics is never free from opposition and challenge.

Ultimately, according to the analysis presented in this interview, decolonization should not be understood merely as a process through which independent states were created. Decolonization remains an unfinished struggle over fundamental questions:

Who possesses power?

Who has the right to self-determination?

How can historically unequal structures be transformed?

And how can a world be created in which sovereignty, justice, and human dignity are not reserved only for the powerful?

Decolonization, in this sense, is not merely the end of a historical period; rather, it represents the continuation of a global dialogue about power, freedom, and justice.